Determinism

[Urwrongx1000]

Everybody, every organism, is 'responsible' for itself and its own body, physically. Pain is a primary instinct. Self-preservation and survival is the core essence of self-responsibility. In humanity, after evolution, people develop a much higher and more complicated sense of self-responsibility. People presume that "taking care of yourself, living well" demonstrates more self-responsibility. People who cannot afford basic amenities, do not wash and clothe themselves, are less responsible, or have no self-responsibility, likened to a child or cripple, instead of an adult. People do not respect those without self-responsibility.

So, self-responsibility is a state of power, implying respect. If somebody cannot think for him/herself, again, this demonstrates a low state of self-responsibility or self-care.


Being very self-responsible means that you would be an adult, have a degree of power, individuality, intelligence, self-care, and self-sufficiency. Independent, not dependent on others.

That is a state of responsibility.

[promethean75]

these answers are trivial contingencies of which every one there is at least one exception, if not more. i was looking for something more along the lines of a philosophical/metaphysical explanation, since that's what the theory of freewill is derived from. concepts like 'respect' and 'self preservation' and 'independence' are an exercise in semantics and could be easily disassembled.

so i'm gonna gracefully bow out of this one.

[Serendipper]

so i'm gonna gracefully bow out of this one.

Well crap, I was anxiously awaiting seeing the good old fashioned passionate ass whooping you were about to deliver

[promethean75]

Well crap, I was anxiously awaiting seeing the good old fashioned passionate ass whooping you were about to deliver

lol. the period in which i enjoyed debate has long since passed, something that ended with the realization that language games can't be 'won'. my participation at philosophy fora is just habitual and something subject to whimsical moods which are constantly changing. i no longer 'roll my sleeves up', so to speak, and prefer to just casually shoot the shit if i'm going to be on a forum. but there is no denying i'm a classic forum addict. it's so bad i often find myself almost catatonic, staring blankly at some post with hamburger train on repeat, blasting through my earbuds.

then this argument with myself follows: what the hell is this? who is this guy? should i say something? but why? well what the fuck are you doing here if you're not gonna say anything? because i'm addicted, asshole! then you should get into it. and waste my time? but you're wasting your time sitting here staring at the page, aren't you? look, if you're gonna waste your time, make your time important so you can at least say you wasted something substantial. yeah but what do i do if the guy starts asking me questions and i gotta waste more time explaining something. so fucking explain it to em! but why, dude?! i don't even know this guy... what the fuck do i care what he knows or doesn't know? hey, ask yourself that question, not me. but you are me, that's why i'm asking. so now your talking to yourself? alright i'm gonna go do something else now while you sit here and stare at the page.

[Serendipper]

Well crap, I was anxiously awaiting seeing the good old fashioned passionate ass whooping you were about to deliver

lol. the period in which i enjoyed debate has long since passed, something that ended with the realization that language games can't be 'won'.

You couldn't win with him in any arena since he's 'determined' not to lose

my participation at philosophy fora is just habitual and something subject to whimsical moods which are constantly changing.

That's the way to be! Don't ever change

i no longer 'roll my sleeves up', so to speak, and prefer to just casually shoot the shit if i'm going to be on a forum. but there is no denying i'm a classic forum addict. it's so bad i often find myself almost catatonic, staring blankly at some post with hamburger train on repeat, blasting through my earbuds.

So which caused the other?

then this argument with myself follows: what the hell is this? who is this guy? should i say something? but why? well what the fuck are you doing here if you're not gonna say anything? because i'm addicted, asshole! then you should get into it. and waste my time? but you're wasting your time sitting here staring at the page, aren't you? look, if you're gonna waste your time, make your time important so you can at least say you wasted something substantial. yeah but what do i do if the guy starts asking me questions and i gotta waste more time explaining something. so fucking explain it to em! but why, dude?! i don't even know this guy... what the fuck do i care what he knows or doesn't know? hey, ask yourself that question, not me. but you are me, that's why i'm asking. so now your talking to yourself? alright i'm gonna go do something else now while you sit here and stare at the page.

What is not wasting time?

[iambiguous]

Again, from my frame of mind....

You misinterpret peacegirl.

Yes, but my point revolves more around those autonomous aliens noting 1] I misinterpreted peacegirl and 2] noting in turn how, given that earth is embedded in a wholly determined segment of the universe, there was never any possibility that I would have [could have] not misinterpreted her.

I type the word freedom here. I chose to type it here and now. No one forced me to. But: Was there ever a possibility that, 24 hours ago, matter unfolded in the universe such that I might have chosen to type another word instead? That I was ever free to? Going all the way back to that which explains matter itself as a component of existence?

Thus given my own understanding of determinism -- which may well be wrong -- it's not whether or not she was "contradicting neuroscience or determinism", but whether or not her posts here were compelled to be as they were/are given that the laws of matter are applicable to all human brains precipitating all human interactions. Including this unfolding exchange.

If hard determinism is the case, well you're not not understanding and your're not being able to understand now, was all determined. Peacegirl acknowledges that, accepts that, assumes that. That's why, as she said, she does not blame you.

Okay, but the manner in which this is broached by her is seen by me as in fact the same sort of blame meted out by those who embrace some measure of human autonomy. Instead, in a wholly determined universe, all of our understanding, acknowledging, blaming, thinking, feeling, assuming, realizing, behaving, changing etc., would seem [by me] to be entirely scripted by nature itself.

Nothing is not determined.

Except that here and now no one seems able to actually pin that down.

People embrace the idea, the feeling that they are choosing their own life "freely"; but only because human thoughts and feeling -- human psychological reactions -- are in and of themselves wholly determined.

The mystery of mindful matter.

Peacegirl thinks a specific change will come. Determined. In part this change will come from people who have already been compelled to give up blame, pointing out that blame hurts and doesnot help. This will be part of the causes and effects which, within determinism, will compell others to give up blame. No free will in any of this.

Yes, but notice how she never actually brings this "peace and prosperity and progress" down to earth. Instead, she has this idea in her head about how human beings should interact, and then, somehow, she has managed to think herself into believing that once others grasp what she and "the author" -- her father? -- are telling us, then, in fact, this is what the future will be. And this makes no sense to me at all in a wholly determined universe. Or, rather, given the way in which I have thought myself into thinking about it.

IOW that humans might give up blaming one another is not inconsistant with determinism. That peacegirl might disagree with you on such an issue does not necessarily entail blame.

If they don't, won't, can't "give it up" of their own autonomous volition, what no earth does "giving up" anything even mean?

I won't read your response. So forget what i should have done or what I didn't do, or what I seem to be doing.

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.

Not that he could have ever done otherwise in a wholly determined universe. So, when you do think about it only as you ever could have thought about it, that let's him off the hook, right?

Then back to the huffing and the puffing...

You may not learn how to feel good about all the things you feel bad about, but you might learn something. I wonder if you have learned anything useful to you in all these years.

I think I've got him on the ropes!

[iambiguous]

The belief in Determinism functions as a security-blanket for most, who would rather that life have some definitive-pre-existing-plan, than no plan at all.

Well, if human interactions are but the embodiment of nature itself unfolding only as it ever could, plan or no plan, nothing can ever be attributed to me as "my fault". But, then, on the other side of the coin, nothing that I accomplish or achieve can ever be other than what it was always going to be as well.

It always works both ways. For both the "winners" and the "losers".

But how frustrating it must be in acknowledging that, either way, no one seems able to demonstrate beyond all doubt which one it really is.

But then the beauty of human thoughts and feelings is that, given the evolution of life on Earth into conscious minds, all one need do is but to believe it is either one or the other.

Believing it makes it true. In your head. And some many most are able to take that all the way to the grave with them. Indeed, some many most even believing [here and now] that on the other side waits immortality and salvation.

[Serendipper]

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.

We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

[iambiguous]

Change, contingency, outside influences, historical, cultural, and experiential contexts give us our predispositions that lead to the reasons why we make particular choices.

Okay, but what predisposes all of this in a wholly determined universe? Is there anything in this exchange -- any word, any argument, any post -- that could ever have not been other than what it must be?

I keep coming back to the assumption that the human mind itself is just matter having evolved into the human brain actually able to convice "I" that it is something other than the brain itself. It is matter able to "will" to "choose" to "think" to "feel" to "behave" in an "autonomous" and "free" manner. But that is only just another manifestation of the laws of matter. Laws which scientists and philosophers and theologians [among others] grapple with, but seem to be no where near pinning down.

None of this grants us free will (i.e. the ability to choose what is worse for ourselves) given the factors that are being considered when making a choice.

From my way of thinking, in a wholly determined universe, "better" and "worse" are just two more dominoes that the brain was compelled to concoct in the only way it can ever concoct anything at all.

Unless of course that's not true at all.

[iambiguous]

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.

We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

Again, on this thread, it's not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.

And, if that is the case, what "on Earth" would not be obligatory?

In other words, suppose, two week from now, I will have changed my mind and come to agree with everything that, say, peacegirl thinks about these relationships.

Will that in turn be only what was every going to unfold -- what was only ever able to unfold -- in this exchange?

[Serendipper]

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.

We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

Again, on this thread, it's not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.

Well, assume it's not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?

And, if that is the case, what "on Earth" would not be obligatory?

Determinism doesn't only result one way or any predictable way. If you want to make that delineation you should use the proper term containing that qualifier: pre-determinism.

X causes Y, but it was just as likely to cause A or B or anything else. There is no way to know which effect X will cause. Rewind the universe 1 hour and it will unfold differently. X causes Y, but why X causes Y can never be known, and all the evidence says there is no why.

Why is the electron here and not over there? There is no reason. If there were a reason, there would be a pattern, but the pattern is random, so there is no reason.

And if there were a reason, then the cause of that reason would have a reason and so on forever, so there is no way to get to the absolute cause of everything that it determines. Either it isn't there or tat tvam asi.

[phyllo]

I type the word freedom here. I chose to type it here and now. No one forced me to. But: Was there ever a possibility that, 24 hours ago, matter unfolded in the universe such that I might have chosen to type another word instead?

You don't know what the possibilities were 24 hours ago. Nobody did.

You only knew what "had to happen" after it had happened.

Let that sink in for a while. What's determined is only determined when it actually happens and not before.

[Urwrongx1000]

I fought Silhouette for dozens of pages about that. It doesn't seem to click with Determinists.

There's no way to know whether it "had to have been" or not. It's merely an (illogical, irrational) assumption. Determinists take for granted that things are "Determined".

Then they can't tell you what's Un-determined. Hard to reason with such irrational people....

[Karpel Tunnel]

I won't read your response. So forget what i should have done or what I didn't do, or what I seem to be doing.

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.

Are you implying a particular thing that it tells others about me? must it be that?

I think it could mean a number of things. Some seem fine to me, some not.

Here's why I do that. Rightly or wrongly I find that you have trouble actually understanding the point of what people are saying, except as it reflects on your core question. So, I experience that you often do not respond to what I write, but repeat what you have written many times before as if it applies. Sometimes it does, often it does not, always I already knew your position, so it does not further the discussion.

If you think I will not read your response, you might not spend time trying to defend your position and you might not repeat what we have all read many times. You might just sit with what I said, mull it over, consider it in a different way. I was not optimistic, but that was my hope.

I have engaged you in long, long interactions. So I have shown I am capable of interacting over long periods to your posts.

I find it passive-aggressive when you ask the gallery questions, rather than simply stating what you think it means. It might not be passive aggressive, you might really be simply curious to get their interpretation. I think your philosophy allows for a great deal of passive aggressiveness, since you can always say you can't be sure. Sort of erasing what you say as you write it. That may be swaying me to think that you are being passive-aggressive when you ask others questions like the above.

It is certainly one way people are passive aggressive, asking the question as if the answer is obvious, but not taking responsibility for saying directly what they think it means. But it might not be in this case.

It might also not be the case that you think there is one possible thing my doing what I did means. Perhaps you realize that my saying I would not read your response could mean lots of things, especially in a context where I have engaged for long long sequences with you before. I hope you did mull it over. I only saw your response above in Seredippers post. I didn't read yours. So, there is always that chance to mull, even now.

[promethean75]

Determinists take for granted that things are "Determined".

and like those who believe there is a 'free will', the determinists would also be wrong. both positions are nonsensical. with the philosophy of 'freewill' there occurred a transposition of adjectives originally used to describe intentional and ambitious acts (e.g., he has a strong will) into properties belonging to some entity (will), which was something different than the body. this entire confusion revolves around calling into question an agency which doesn't exist. one doesn't have a 'will', just like one doesn't have a 'mind' or 'consciousness' or a 'soul'. the use of these words as entities rather than as descriptions for behaviors is the source of such philosophical confusions.

you'll see in this excellent summary - which i frequently post anywhere i find this argument in progress - why to use the phrase 'determine' is misleading when trying to devise an alternative position to 'freewill'.

Ok, here is my summary [of my ideas on 'determinism'], but comrades should not expect a water-tight solution to such a knotty problem in a few paragraphs. I am only posting this because I was asked to do so.

[I will however be publishing an essay specifically about this in the next few years, where I will substantiate what I have to say below far more fully.]

This issue has always revolved around the use of terminology drawn from traditional philosophy (such as "determined", "will", "free", and the like), the use of which bears no relation to how these words are employed in ordinary speech.

For example, "determine" and its cognates are typically used in sentences like this "The rules determine what you can do in chess", "The time of the next train can be determined from the timetable", or "I am determined to go on the demonstration" and so on. Hence this word is normally used in relation to what human beings can do, can apply, or can bring about.

As we will see, their use in traditional thought inverts this, making nature the agent and human beings the patient. No wonder then that the 'solution' to this artificial problem (i.e., 'determinism' and 'free will') has eluded us for over 2000 years.

To use an analogy, would we take seriously anyone who wondered when the King and Queen in chess got married, and then wanted to know who conducted the ceremony? Or, whether planning permission had been sought for that castle over in the corner? Such empty questions, of course, have no answer.

To be sure, this is more difficult to see in relation to the traditional question at hand, but it is nonetheless the result of similar confusions. So, it is my contention that this 'problem' has only arisen because ideologically-motivated theorists (from centuries ago) asked such empty questions, based on a misuse of language. [More on this below.]

When the details are worked out, 'determinism', for instance, can only be made to seem to work if nature is anthropomorphised, so that such things as 'natural law' 'determine' the course of events -- both in reality in general and in the central nervous system in particular -- thus 'controlling' what we do.

But, this is to take concepts that properly apply to what we do and can decide, and then impose them on natural events, suggesting that nature is controlled by a cosmic will of some sort. [Why this is so, I will outline presently.]

So, it's natural to ask: Where is this law written, and who passed it?

Of course, the answer to these questions is "No one" and "Nowhere", but then how can something that does not exist control anything?

It could be responded that natural law is just a summary of how things have so far gone up to now. In that case, such 'laws' are descriptive not prescriptive -- but it is the latter of these implications that determinists need.

Now, the introduction of modal notions here (such as 'must', or 'necessary') cannot be justified from this descriptive nature of 'law' without re-introducing the untoward anthropomorphic connotations mentioned above.

So, if we say that A has always followed B, we cannot now say A must follow B unless we attribute to B some form of control over A (and recall A has not yet happened, so what B is supposed to be controlling is somewhat obscure). And if we now try to say what we mean by 'control' (on lines such as 'could not be otherwise', or 'B made A happen') we need to explain how B prevented, say, C happening instead, and made sure that A, and only A took place.

The use of "obey" here would give the game away, since if this word is used with connotations that go beyond mere description, then this will imply that events like A understand the 'law' (like so many good citizens), and always do the same when B beckons, right across the entire universe --, and, indeed, that this 'law' must exist in some form to make things obey it. Of course, if it doesn't mean this, then what does it mean?

Now, I maintain that any attempt to fill in the details here will introduce notions of will and intelligence into the operation of B on A (and also on C) -- and that is why theorists have found they have had to drag in anthropomorphic concepts here (such as 'determine', 'obey' 'law' and 'control') to fill this gap, failing to note that the use of such words does indeed imply there is a will of some sort operating in nature. [But, note the qualification I introduce here, below. There were ideological reasons why these words were in fact used.]

If this is denied then 'determine' (etc.) can only be working descriptively, and we are back at square one.

Incidentally, the above problems are not to be avoided by the introduction of biochemical, neurological, and/or physiological objects and processes. The same questions apply here as elsewhere: how can, for example, a certain chemical 'control' what happens next unless it is intelligent in some way? Reducing this to physics is even worse; how can 'the field' (or whatever) control the future? 'The field' is a mathematical object and no more capable of controlling anything than a Hermite polynomial is. Of course, and once more, to argue otherwise would be to anthropomorphise such things -- which is why I made the argument above abstract, since it covers all bases.

This also explains why theorists (and particularly scientists who try to popularise their work) find they have to use 'scare quotes' and metaphor everywhere in this area.

As I noted earlier, this whole way of looking at 'the will' inverts things. We are denied a will (except formally) and nature is granted one. As many might now be able to see, this is yet another aspect of the alienating nature of traditional thought, where words are fetishised and we are dehumanised.

And this should not surprise us since such questions were originally posed theologically (and thus ideologically), where theorists were quite happy to alienate to 'god' such control over nature and our supposedly 'free' actions'. Hence, we too find that we have to appropriate such distorted terminology if we follow traditional patterns of thought in this area.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.

We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

wouldn't all behavior be obligatory in a determined universe?
which means that as one realizes this, if one does, then one might feel less blame,
which I believe was one of peacegirl's points. That we will be affected by the knowledge of determinism, over time, to no longer blame. It will have always been inevitable when we do. And would include blaming me for setting him straight and leaving the discussion.

Oddly, I was actually in a fairly compassionate mood when I wrote that post. I thought they were talking past each other. Thought there was a small chance I could brigde.

I think I'll go back to snarky.

[Urwrongx1000]

this entire confusion revolves around calling into question an agency which doesn't exist. one doesn't have a 'will', just like one doesn't have a 'mind' or 'consciousness' or a 'soul'.

I disagree with that.

Everybody has a list of (metaphysical) values, beliefs, ideals, identifications that they are willing to fight and die for.

For example, if you have a wife and kids, then most people would be willing to act on that. People also believe they own/possess/owe others, which is not bodily/physically apparent.

[promethean75]

I disagree with that.

and you can do that... and you can even talk of 'having' a will in ordinary language. it's only when we get philosophical that the conceptual confusions arise surrounding the meaning of the word 'will'. when we think of 'will' as some immaterial substance, we commit a category mistake (see gilbert ryle) if we then proceed to talk about it in the traditional philosophical sense (plato > descartes), and our predications become nonsensical.

'he has a strong will'

so we have two entities, the person, and the will which they possess? or rather do we say the person's disposition, in this case the resolve, was persistent? if the latter then we are describing a capacity of behavior and not a thing, not an entity, not a subject 'will'. if the former was have to ask; where is this will kept. then the metaphors appear; 'by his heart', or 'in his soul', etc. now we're talking poetry, not philosophy.

you find this kind of subtle category mistake present everywhere in philosophy from the ancient greeks all the way up to freud and his theory of psychic apparatus. but again, there is no need to point this subtle mistake out if we aren't speaking in a philosophically technical language... since that's only where the confusion appears.

Everybody has a list of (metaphysical) values, beliefs, ideals, identifications that they are willing to fight and die for.

yeah but i dunno why you'd call such things 'metaphysical'.

be that as it may, i'm simply saying there is no freewill first because there is no 'will' in the sense that philosophers think there is, and second, even if there were, it sure as shit wouldn't be 'free' in the sense that philosophers think of it as being. then at the same time i deny the doctrine of determinism because that is a gross anthropomorphothromorphicization of nature.

[peacegirl]

I type the word freedom here. I chose to type it here and now. No one forced me to. But: Was there ever a possibility that, 24 hours ago, matter unfolded in the universe such that I might have chosen to type another word instead?

You don't know what the possibilities were 24 hours ago. Nobody did.

You only knew what "had to happen" after it had happened.

Thank you! That’s what I was trying to explain. It’s only after a happening that it could not not have happened. We have choices but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. That does not mean we are in a fixed state where our choices are not our own, or that the choice has already been made for us using the domino example. This is an important observation because our consent has to precede any choice made.

Let that sink in for a while. What's determined is only determined when it actually happens and not before.

Correct!

[peacegirl]

I disagree with that.

and you can do that... and you can even talk of 'having' a will in ordinary language. it's only when we get philosophical that the conceptual confusions arise surrounding the meaning of the word 'will'. when we think of 'will' as some immaterial substance, we commit a category mistake (see gilbert ryle) if we then proceed to talk about it in the traditional philosophical sense (plato > descartes), and our predications become nonsensical.

'he has a strong will'

so we have two entities, the person, and the will which they possess? or rather do we say the person's disposition, in this case the resolve, was persistent? if the latter then we are describing a capacity of behavior and not a thing, not an entity, not a subject 'will'. if the former was have to ask; where is this will kept. then the metaphors appear; 'by his heart', or 'in his soul', etc. now we're talking poetry, not philosophy.

you find this kind of subtle category mistake present everywhere in philosophy from the ancient greeks all the way up to freud and his theory of psychic apparatus. but again, there is no need to point this subtle mistake out if we aren't speaking in a philosophically technical language... since that's only where the confusion appears.

Everybody has a list of (metaphysical) values, beliefs, ideals, identifications that they are willing to fight and die for.

yeah but i dunno why you'd call such things 'metaphysical'.

be that as it may, i'm simply saying there is no freewill first because there is no 'will' in the sense that philosophers think there is, and second, even if there were, it sure as shit wouldn't be 'free' in the sense that philosophers think of it as being. then at the same time i deny the doctrine of determinism because that is a gross anthropomorphothromorphicization of nature.

Once again, the definition over words is a semantic one. Will simply means the ability to choose one thing over another based on one’s desire. It can be a strong desire or a weak one depending on the choice being made. This will is never free because we are never given a free choice.

[promethean75]

yeah sure, but that's compatibalism/soft-determinism... which is the failed last vestige to save freewill and responsibility from having to swallow the 'last bitter drop' (nietzsche) of the truth and surrender to amoralism.

it's what biggy has been trying to explain to you for weeks; you can't get around the problem by saying 'we can choose between our desires', because that choice, too, is just another domino (as biggy put it).

[iambiguous]

Again, on this thread, it's not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.

Well, assume it's not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?

What I assume in a world where we do have some measure of autonomy, is that "I" is embedded in the laws of nature in the either/or world. Here there are objective truths seemingly applicable to all of us. However, in the is/ought world of conflicting goods, "I" is still no less an "existential contraption". At least at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power. Obligations here are predicated on any particular objective context construed from any particular subjective/subjunctive point of view.

And, if that is the case, what "on Earth" would not be obligatory?

Determinism doesn't only result one way or any predictable way. If you want to make that delineation you should use the proper term containing that qualifier: pre-determinism.

X causes Y, but it was just as likely to cause A or B or anything else. There is no way to know which effect X will cause. Rewind the universe 1 hour and it will unfold differently. X causes Y, but why X causes Y can never be known, and all the evidence says there is no why.

Forget X and Y. Forget electrons. Bring this assessment down to earth by describing what you construe to be cause and effect with respect to human interactions. How one might differentiate them in the either/or and in the is/ought world. Rewind the universe 24 hours and assess whether today's news headlines might have been different in a wholly determined universe. From my frame of mind, given a determined universe, the is/ought world is indistinguishable from the either/or world. It's just that matter evolving into life on Earth evolving into human brains evolving into self-conscious minds is able to concoct and then sustain the illusion of free will.

Still: We can speculate about all of this until we are blue in the face. But what can we actually demonstrate is in fact true such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it. Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.

[iambiguous]

I type the word freedom here. I chose to type it here and now. No one forced me to. But: Was there ever a possibility that, 24 hours ago, matter unfolded in the universe such that I might have chosen to type another word instead?

You don't know what the possibilities were 24 hours ago. Nobody did.

Okay, but 24 hours ago, could I have freely chosen to think I know something other than what I came to think I know?

You only knew what "had to happen" after it had happened.

Let that sink in for a while. What's determined is only determined when it actually happens and not before.

Again and again: I'm more than willing to concede the points that you are making here [like the points that others are making] are in fact more in sync with what is actually true.

But if that is the case it has not sunk in. Or not yet. But how am I to determine if, in a wholly determined universe, there was ever the possibility of my having freely chosen to think about it differently 24 hours ago such that today I would instead be exclaiming, "oh, now I get it!"

How is not before something happened, something happens and something else will happen, not embedded inherently, necessarily, wholly in "nature's way"?

[Urwrongx1000]

'he has a strong will'

so we have two entities, the person, and the will which they possess? or rather do we say the person's disposition, in this case the resolve, was persistent? if the latter then we are describing a capacity of behavior and not a thing, not an entity, not a subject 'will'. if the former was have to ask; where is this will kept. then the metaphors appear; 'by his heart', or 'in his soul', etc. now we're talking poetry, not philosophy.

The body and the behavior are the same "thing".

This is why a woman can be a super-model, but dumb as a brick, and/or be repulsive in many other traits, and beauty alone isn't good enough.

Identity, the "will", involves both aspects.


Even though midgets may have a "strong will", doesn't mean they'll be taken seriously or respected though. Willpower = Body (power) + Behavior (will).

[Serendipper]

Again, on this thread, it's not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.

Well, assume it's not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?

What I assume in a world where we do have some measure of autonomy, is that "I" is embedded in the laws of nature in the either/or world. Here there are objective truths seemingly applicable to all of us. However, in the is/ought world of conflicting goods, "I" is still no less an "existential contraption". At least at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power. Obligations here are predicated on any particular objective context construed from any particular subjective/subjunctive point of view.

Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?

Determinism doesn't only result one way or any predictable way. If you want to make that delineation you should use the proper term containing that qualifier: pre-determinism.

X causes Y, but it was just as likely to cause A or B or anything else. There is no way to know which effect X will cause. Rewind the universe 1 hour and it will unfold differently. X causes Y, but why X causes Y can never be known, and all the evidence says there is no why.

Forget X and Y. Forget electrons. Bring this assessment down to earth by describing what you construe to be cause and effect with respect to human interactions.

X and Y and electrons is bringing it down to earth. How much closer to earth can I get than electrons?

Exhibit an example that you think is down to earth and then I will shoehorn it into probable outcomes.

How one might differentiate them in the either/or and in the is/ought world.

What does this mean? Why qualify "world" with "either/or and is/ought"? Why not just say "world"? What information is the qualifier conveying?

Rewind the universe 24 hours and assess whether today's news headlines might have been different in a wholly determined universe.

The chance it would unfold the same is unfathomable.

From my frame of mind, given a determined universe, the is/ought world is indistinguishable from the either/or world.

Right.

It's just that matter evolving into life

Wrong. Life cannot come from nonlife. Something from nothing is absurd.

on Earth evolving into human brains evolving into self-conscious minds is able to concoct and then sustain the illusion of free will.

Freewill can only be realized in the context of things that are not free.

Still: We can speculate about all of this until we are blue in the face. But what can we actually demonstrate is in fact true such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it.

The pertinent question is what can be demonstrated to irrational men and women such that they are obligated to believe it? Rational men and women are not the problem

How does one demonstrate red to a blind man such that he is obligated to believe it?

Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.

Existence itself doesn't exist. Circular argument. Things exist in a context and existence has no context to exist in, but is essentially a synonym for relationship, which arises spontaneously when one thing is perceived to be different from another thing even though they are codependent and in fact the same thing.